Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Mourillon, Nadevah K.N.; de Gijt, Jarit; Bakker, Klaas Jan; Brassinga, Henk; Broos, Erik
DOI
10.1051/matecconf/201713806001
Publication date
2017
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Published in
The 6th International Conference of Euro Asia Civil Engineering Forum
Citation (APA)
Mourillon, N. K. N., De Gijt, J., Bakker, K. J., Brassinga, H., & Broos, E. (2017). Stability Analysis Quay Wall
at the Amazonehaven, Port of Rotterdam. In J. W. Park, H. Ay Lie, H. Hardjasaputra, & P. Thayaalan (Eds.),
The 6th International Conference of Euro Asia Civil Engineering Forum (Vol. 138). [06001] (MATEC Web of
Conferences; Vol. 138). DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/201713806001
Important note
To cite this publication, please use the final published version (if applicable).
Please check the document version above.
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent
of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Takedown policy
Please contact us and provide details if you believe this document breaches copyrights.
We will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
1. Introduction
In the 1980’s, it was of great importance to the port of Rotterdam, while competing with
other major loading ports in countries such as Australia, the United States of America,
Canada, South America and South Africa, to be able to facilitate vessels greater than 100 000
dwt. With this in mind, the E.M.O. deep-sea terminal (Fig. 1) was constructed for the
throughput of iron and coal which was realized in 1990. This 900 m long deep-sea quay
terminal is located at the Maasvlakte I at the Amazonehaven. In Fig. 1 the cross section of
the quay wall is illustrated.
© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
MATEC Web of Conferences 138, 06001 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/201713806001
EACEF 2017
Fig. 1 Overview of the ‘Europees Massagoed Overslagbedrijf’ (E.M.O.) at the Amazonehaven (Left);
Cross section of the quay wall at the Amazonehaven [10] (Right)
The widening at the south side of the Amazonehaven harbour basin must be realized due to
the rapid growing of the container vessels mooring in the Amazonehaven. During the
demolition of the old quay wall much damage are discovered at the tip of the open tubular
and intermediate sheet piles. This was an unexpected discovery which according to the
recorded events that took place during its service lifetime was not known. The damages to
the open tubular piles consist of folding of the pile toe, completely closed pile toe, ovalisation
at the pile toe or other damages. In Fig. 2 typical damages to the tubular piles are illustrated.
A rough estimation of the damages to the open tubular piles is to about 15% to 20% of the
piles. In the case of the intermediate sheet piles roughly 50% seems to be damaged. All the
damages are at the toe of the sheet pile because of the interlock openings that occurred during
construction. These unexpected damages lead to the investigation of the structural stability
mechanisms of the deep-sea quay wall. In this paper the stability of the quay wall at the
Amazonehaven for its service lifetime will be discussed.
2
MATEC Web of Conferences 138, 06001 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/201713806001
EACEF 2017
2. Methods
Various design calculation methods are available for the design of a quay wall. These
methods are:
3
MATEC Web of Conferences 138, 06001 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/201713806001
EACEF 2017
3.1 Modelling
For the design of the quay wall three methods were used. The first two methods, Blum and
D-sheet Pilling, were the least reliable for determining the stability of the quay wall. With
these methods an estimation is obtained of the penetration depth, bending moment, shear
forces and displacement.
The quay wall is the input model in Plaxis 3D. This allows for a more accurate quay wall
modelling, specifically oblique installed combined walls and the analysis and evaluation of
plastic deformation are also possible. In order to understand the deformation behaviour of
the quay wall, specifically the combined wall, a calibration model (Fig. 3) is set up. This
model is based on the original designed quay wall without surface loads. This model can be
compared to the results from the other five models (Fig. 4, 5 and 6) based on the deformation
of the foundation elements and relieving platform structure. The reason for this is the stability
of the quay wall model is not only dependent on the deformation of the combined wall but
also on the displacement of the foundation elements and relieving platform structure as well.
Fig. 3 Deformed mesh of the calibration model (Left) and schematization quay wall model (Right) [1]
4
MATEC Web of Conferences 138, 06001 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/201713806001
EACEF 2017
Fig. 5 Quay wall simulated on two supported ends – Model 2A (Left) and Model 2B (Right)
Fig. 6 Quay wall simulated on one supported end – Model 3A (Left) and Model 3B (Right)
From the results, comparison between the various quay wall models and the calibration model
can be concluded that Model 2B and calibration model can be further investigated.
5
MATEC Web of Conferences 138, 06001 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/201713806001
EACEF 2017
Fig. 7 The relation between the minimum penetration depths for a Trapezium Distributed Surcharges
(TDS) and Uniformed Distributed Surcharges (UDS) for various load cases [1]
Fig. 8 The relation between the minimum penetration depths for a Trapezium Distributed Surcharges
(TDS) and Uniformed Distributed Surcharges (UDS) for various load cases [1]
From the comparison between the two models it can be concluded that by modelling the
distribution of the surface loads as a trapezium or uniformly the difference of minimum
penetrated depth of the combined wall is considerably small. Furthermore, the field bending
moment increases as the surface load increases which leads to a freely imposed bending
moment. When the combined wall is shorter than the calculated minimum penetrated depth
the quay wall model becomes unstable. With a 2-dimensional software such as D-sheet piling
it is apparent that the (in) stability of the quay wall is not investigated for the entire length of
a quay section of 45 meters. It is only a cross section per meter that is calculated.
6
MATEC Web of Conferences 138, 06001 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/201713806001
EACEF 2017
Fig. 9 Deformed mesh calibration model with designed surcharge (Left) and deformed mesh calibration
model with designed surcharge without soil (Right)
Fig. 10 Deformed mesh model 2B with designed surcharge (Left) and deformed mesh model 2B with
designed surcharge without soil (Right)
The results of the previous models of the quay wall are compared to the calibration model
and model 2B based on the structural stability.
In Fig. 10 a comparison between the two models is illustrated. As it can be observed from
the graph the maximum bending moments in model 2B are higher than in the calibration
7
MATEC Web of Conferences 138, 06001 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/201713806001
EACEF 2017
model. The reason for this is that model 2B has an opening at the centre of the combined
wall. Because of this opening the redistribution of the moment will be higher at the sides than
the centre of the combined wall where the opening is situated.
Table 1 Safety comparison between calibration model and model 2B
The safety analysis results in a safety factor which can be obtained by reducing the strength
parameters incrementally. Starting from un-factored values that are inputted when creating
the soil layers of the models ϕavail and cavail, until equilibrium can no longer be achieved in
the calculations [7, 8, 9]. The results represents the behaviour of the loads acting on the quay
wall, in this case the self-weight, at the defined construction phase. The safety factor value
(S.F.-value) for the calibration model is equal to 1.494 and for model 2B this is 1.473. The
safety factor value implies the reduction factor that is imposed on the friction angle and
cohesion until the quay wall becomes unstable.
Apart from the S.F.-value a unity check and safety margin of these two models were
determined which can be expressed in a mathematical equation:
(1)
(2)
Fig. 12 Plastic points calibration model (Left) and plastic points model 2B (Right)
8
MATEC Web of Conferences 138, 06001 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/201713806001
EACEF 2017
Fig. 13 Phase displacement calibration model (Left) and phase displacement model 2B (Right)
In Fig. 11 a comparison is shown for both model which shows that underneath the combined
wall higher stresses occur and these are very interesting to analyse. This figure shows for
both model the potential of numerical methods when investigating failure mechanisms soil-
structure interaction should be taken into account. The structural elements, specifically the
combined wall, will yield due to the effective horizontal soil pressure from the active side.
The effective horizontal soil pressure on the active side underneath the relieving platform
structure, which can be recognized by the red points, becomes larger than the effective
horizontal soil pressure on the passive side.
However, the phase displacements of the models (Fig. 12) a difference can be observed at
the passive side. The contour lines are different at the passive side in front of the combined
wall. In Fig. 12 at the passive side the phase displacement is larger and at the surface level of
the harbour basin. This is because of the opening being two meters below the construction
depth, N.A.P. -25.50m. According to the j/c –reduction calculation for Model 2B and the
calibration model the calculated deformations are not realistic, but it can illustrate how the
quay wall model will behave.
9
MATEC Web of Conferences 138, 06001 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/201713806001
EACEF 2017
References
1. N.K.N. Mourillon, J.G. de Gijt, K.J. Bakker, T. Vellinga, P. Taneja, S.H.J. van Es,
E.J. Broos, Stability analysis quay structure at the Amazonehaven port of Rotterdam
(2015)
2. J.G. de Gijt , M.L. Broeken, Quay walls, Second edition SBRCURnet Publication
211E (2014)
3. J.G. de Gijt, A.A. Roubos, D. Grotegoed, SBRCUR 186 Binnenstedelijke
kademuren. (2014)
4. J. Grabe, Sheet piling handbook design (2008)
5. CUR Bouw & Infra, Damwandconstructies. SBRCURnet Publication CUR 166
(2012)
6. C.N. van Schaik, J.G. de Gijt, Diepwater terminal Amazonehaven zuidzijde (1989)
7. Plaxis, Reference Manual (2013)
8. Plaxis, Material Models Manual (2013)
9. R.B.J. Brinkgreve, H.L. Bakker, Non-linear finite element method analysis of safety
factors. In Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on Comp. Methods and Advances in Geomechanics.
Cairns, Australia (1991)
10. R. Nejad, J.G. de Gijt, J. Verlaan, H. Pacejka, P. Middendorp, S.H.J. van Es,
Research into pile toe failure in Amazonehaven (to be published)
10